On March 8, 2016, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York issued a much-anticipated decision, In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation,¹ that will undoubtedly influence the reorganization strategies of certain exploration and production (E&P) companies and have a significant impact on midstream companies.

Precipitous commodity price declines that began in mid-2014 continued to disrupt the oil and gas industry in 2015, outlasting the expectations of many analysts. By the end of 2015, prices for both Brent and WTI crude were fluctuating in the mid to upper $30s per barrel, down from highs of over $100 a barrel in mid-2014.

On November 18, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed intentional fraudulent transfer claims asserted by a bankruptcy litigation trustee against former shareholders of Lyondell Chemical Company in Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.) (Lyondell II). By adopting a strict view of what constitutes intent, the opinion tightens pleading standards applicable to these cases. It bears watching whether other courts will apply Lyondell II's more demanding pleading standards.

A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York clarifies that restructuring options under Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 are available to foreign issuers of U.S. debt, even if those issuers have no operations in the United States (In re Berau Capital Resources PTE Ltd.). The decision could have widespread implications for cross-border restructuring transactions involving U.S.-issued debt, since the ability to utilize Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 offers many advantages for foreign issuers.

Background

Under long-established common law, loans must be paid only upon maturity, not before. This "perfect tender in time" rule is the default rule in a number of jurisdictions. Many indentures and credit agreements therefore either bar prepayments altogether with "no call" provisions or permit prepayments with "make whole" provisions that require the payment of a specified premium to make up for the loss of future income.

In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.¹ Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.¹ The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.

In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.

The Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy trustee to avoid (i.e., obtain the return of) certain types of prepetition property transfers so that the bankrupt estate can be divided among creditors fairly. For example, a trustee may bring actions to set aside transfers made within a specified period before the bankruptcy (preferences) and transfers made deliberately to defraud creditors (fraudulent transfers).

New York's position as a global financial center means litigants often have sought to use New York courts as a forum to enforce judgments or arbitration awards against foreign entities. In reality, the burden of enforcement proceedings often falls on third parties, such as financial institutions that hold (or are alleged to hold) the judgment debtor's assets.